Donald ‘Herbert Hoover’ Trump
Donald Trump scares me. The real estate mogul, author, television star, and potential Republican presidential candidate has views on economics and foreign trade that could prove to be disastrous if he were to prevail on November 6, 2012.
“Everybody is ripping us off,” he likes to say. It’s become his political mantra.
Last Friday he told Rush Limbaugh:
“I look at the way China is just ripping us off, I look at OPEC the way they are ripping us off with the oil prices. . . . We lost last year—let’s call it ‘lost’—$4 billion with Colombia, fourth largest country in Latin America, $4 billion. With China this year, Rush, we’re gonna lose $300 billion, and that wouldn’t happen if I was there.”
Likewise, he told Sean Hannity:
“Because what is happening is, if you take away $300 billion—where China is ripping us [off]—and you take away Colombia, and you take away virtually every nation in the world, who is making a huge—let’s use the word profit on the United States—when you start equalizing that . . . the numbers aren’t as bad as what you are seeing.”
The U.S. trade deficit with China was nearly $300 billion. True, China manipulates its currency for economic advantage, but so does the United States. Neither country pursues a healthy monetary policy. When it comes to trade, Americans like to buy Chinese products (think low prices at Wal-Mart). Were those Americans ripped off? What about the woman who bought shoes from France and the college student who bought a computer from a Japanese company? Were they ripped off, too? Trump told Limbaugh that he sold a building to a Chinese man for $33 million. Did Trump rip him off? Is international trade nothing but a series of multi-cultural rip-offs?
How would Trump deal with the Chinese? He’d slap a 25 percent tariff on their products. Doesn’t he remember Republican President Herbert Hoover? Hoover also campaigned on a tariff theme and signed the devastating 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff bill. “The new law made sense on an emotional level,” says Amity Shlaes in The Forgotten Man. “Still, for the general economy the law was bad news.” Indeed, foreign countries retaliated and worldwide trade declined 66 percent by 1934.
If he somehow found himself in the White House, Trump could prove to be a modern day Herbert Hoover with a real chance of history repeating itself.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top14 Comments to “Donald ‘Herbert Hoover’ Trump”
He would scare me (if I thought he had a chance of getting elected) for other reasons entirely, but this one has to be included among them.
Report comment to moderator
Trump’s candidcay reminds me just a bit of that of Jesse “The Body” Ventura, who won the governor’s race in Minnesota about a dozen years ago. His rhetoric was appealing to emotion but he had little experience and he governed poorly overall. Minnesota is famous for voting against conventional candidates “on principle” and exploiting populist anger only to make things even worse (Ventura & Al Franken for instance).
But after voting their anger and emotion, Minnesotans tend to rebound back to convention. After Ventura, we actually elected and re-elected a grown-up (Tim Pawlenty). He’s not a populist, but he governed decently.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark (#2),
My thoughts exactly!
Report comment to moderator
I recommend visiting the Hoover Presidential Library in Eastern Iowa. Nice visit. Hoover was a decent man to be sure, but not a great President. Many of Hoover’s economic policies and misakes were adopted by FDR who kept unemployment figures horribly high for over a decade. But FDR had better rhetoric and was more of an activist (which helped to extend the Depression). America lived on lots of rhetoric and spin throughout the Great Depression and it was the American people (facing WW2 boldly) and not a politician that that eventually got us out.
The Hoover to FDR scenario has some parallels with the Bush to Obama scenerio.
Report comment to moderator
It’s time to get a WRITE-IN campaign going.
Report comment to moderator
Trump is a one-man OBama re-election committee.
The same folks swooning for him will in turn point out the “unelectability” of Newt. Ironic given both men have made multiple trips down the aisle. So much so that the wedding license has ea man’s name and “to whom it may concern” in the woman’s signature bloc
Report comment to moderator
Donald Trump is a Republican?
From what I’ve seen ANYONE can call himself a Republican these days.
Maybe even Republican headquarters ISN’T “Republican”, when all this time they have allowed RINOs to run under the “Republican” banner. It became a Dems win or Dems win during elections. Could explain how we’ve gotten where we are today.
The TEA PARTY needs to BREAK AWAY from so-called Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
If there is one thing that should unite persons of all political leanings it’s that anyone…literally anyone…would be a better candidate for president than someone who was once in a public spat with Rosie O’Donald, and is currently in one with Gail Collins. I shudder to think what diplomacy under Trump would look like.
Report comment to moderator
#7 – “From what I’ve seen ANYONE can call himself a Republican these days.”
And anyone can call himself a Tea Party supporter too.
“The TEA PARTY needs to BREAK AWAY from so-called Republicans.”
Will they get more organized, effectively attract more votes and win more elections that way? Can they manage to Constitutionally maintain control of congress and congressional committees that way?
If so, fine with me.
Report comment to moderator
First of all, a president can’t do a lot of things withou Congress. So, calm down.
The Tea Party is a faction, not a real party. Thee’s nothing wrong with that.
One thing you cannot find on Trump is him badmouthing the mothers of his children. And he is a good father. In love with himself to be sure, but he’s not a bad man.
Report comment to moderator
Obama has a lot to gain from such opponents
Report comment to moderator
Obama has a lot to gain from such opponents
Report comment to moderator
Hoover?
From Wiki
**Northern Progressives sought free trade to undermine the power base of Republicans** –
Woodrow Wilson would admit as much in a speech to Congress. A brief resurgence by Republicans in the 1920s was disastrous for them. Woodrow Wilson’s ideological understudy, Franklin Roosevelt, would essentially blame the Great Depression upon the protectionist policies exemplified by the previous Republican President, Herbert Hoover……….
So if a “socialist” Democrat like FDR supported free trade and was against protectionism to undermine the Republicans why is it that Republicans so staunchly support it today? Look at CATO, Heritage et al…
From CATO…….
May 30, 1988
The Reagan Record On Trade:
Rhetoric Vs. Reality THE CATO INSTITUTE
When President Reagan imposed a 100 percent tariff on selected Japanese electronics in 1987, he and the press gave the impression that this was an act of desperation. Pictured was a long-forbearing president whose patience was exhausted by the recalcitrant and conniving Japanese. After trying for years to elicit some fairness out of them, went the story, the usually good-natured president had finally had enough.
If President Reagan has a devotion to free trade, it surely must be blind, because he has been off the mark most of the time. Only short memories and a refusal to believe one’s own eyes would account for the view that President Reagan is a free trader. Calling oneself a free trader is not the same thing as being a free trader. Nor does a free- trade position mean that the president, but not Congress, should have the power to impose trade sanctions. Instead, a president deserves the title of free trader only if his efforts demonstrate an attempt to remove trade barriers at home and prevent the imposition of new ones.
By this standard, the Reagan administration has failed to promote free trade. Ronald Reagan by his actions has become the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa107.html
By the way lincoln would have been a liberal too by your judgement
Free trade in America is the policy of economics developed by American slave holding states and protectionism is a northern, manufacturing issue.
Historically, southern slave holding states, because of their low cost manual labor, had little perceived need for mechanization, and supported having the right to purchase manufactured goods from any nation. Thus they called themselves free traders.
In 1973 President Richard Nixon cut U.S. tariffs to all time lows, which moved the United States further in the free market direction, and away from its American School economic system.
Trump’s stand on free trade would reverse Richard Nixon’s reversal in 1973 of the economic system that our country was founded on and practiced from the 1790’s until Nixon. Nixon followed employed and followed neoliberal Milton Friedman’s advice and turned our country to neoliberalism and away from the American School.
1975 would be the last trade surplus the United States would see.
Report comment to moderator
Oh and then there is this. A president can do whatever he wants on tariffs thanks to the constitution & Richard Nixon
The Trade Act of 1974
The act delegated significant power to the president to invoke measures to protect American industries from increased imports from other nations, whether or not injury was being caused by unfair trade practices.
The act’s primary importance lies in Title II, Section 201, which gives the PRESIDENT the authority to take actions to protect U.S. businesses from injury caused by increased quantities of imports, even though the increase in imports violates no ban on unfair trade practices.
THE PRESIDENT CAN JUST DO IT
CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR THE ACT
Article II of the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted to vest authority to conduct foreign policy in the president, but Article 8, Section 1 gives Congress the power to lay and collect duties and the power to regulate foreign commerce. Therefore the power to regulate trade with other nations must be delegated by Congress to the president.
Section 301 expanded presidential authority to retaliate against trade practices by other nations that unfairly burden or restrict U.S. commerce, whether through high tariffs or through nontariff trade barriers. The president may suspend trade concessions, impose new higher tariff rates on a selective basis
Impact of the Act
Primarily because of Section 301, the Trade Act has been used more to open foreign markets to U.S. exports and investments than to protect American industries from unfair competition. Section 301 is a unilateral provision in U.S. law that can be invoked irrespective of any remedies available under the multilateral GATT or WTO.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!